C. Athanasopoulos and C. Schneider (eds),Divine Essence and Divine Energies: Ecumenical Reflections on the Presence of God in Eastern Orthodoxy

C. Athanasopoulos and C. Schneider (eds), Divine Essence and Divine Energies: Ecumenical Reflections on the Presence of God in Eastern Orthodoxy, James Clarke and Co.: Cambridge, 2013; 298 pp.: 9780227173862, £25.00 (pbk)

In his introduction to the English translation of the first volume of Fr Stăniloae’s Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (called in English, The Experience of God), Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware) refers to the ‘Palamite distinction-in-unity between God’s essence and his uncreated energies’ and goes on to remark, ‘The central place that [Fr Dumitru] assigns to this distinction is a new and significant development, so far as works of modern Orthodox dogmatic theology are concerned’. That was in 1994 (the Romanian original had appeared in 1978); now, only a few decades later, we have a book that seems to take for granted that the Palamite essence – energies distinction is the defining doctrine of Eastern Orthodoxy, over against the West (in almost any form), which finds this doctrine either false or incomprehensible. It is worth reminding ourselves, as we approach this book, how fleetingly this doctrine has been regarded as more or less the articulus stantis et cadentis Ecclesiae Orthodoxae: seized on by St Gregory Palamas in the fourteenth century in his defence of the hesychast monks’ claim to have achieved union with God through beholding the divine light, the doctrine was revived, unevenly, in the twentieth century, and has achieved such defining status only recently. This symposium, inspired by David Bradshaw’s brilliant and controversial book, Aristotle: East and West (2004), gathers together contributions from theologians of both East and West, who reflect on the book and its central contention about the crucial role of the uncreated energies in an Orthodox metaphysics, topped and tailed by contributions from Bradshaw himself, the conclusion responding to the symposium. Alas, there is not much engagement in the book among the contributors. Mostly we have set pieces (Milbank on the intellectual history of the West, with some other contributors summarizing what they have said at length elsewhere). The one contribution that brings Aquinas and Palamas (and indeed Maximos) into dialogue is the article by Fr Antoine Lévy op, who draws on his deep knowledge of both Aquinas and Maximos/Palamas to explore what he sees as two complementary theological idioms. Lévy finds in Bradshaw an originality that is unfortunately overlaid by traditional Orthodox apologetics, which is, alas, very defensive. Bradshaw’s response is certainly defensive: rejecting the role of apologist, he claims he is just a philosopher, with no axe to grind. Is this the same David Bradshaw who wrote so movingly about his embrace of Orthodoxy in Turning East: Contemporary Philosophers and the Ancient Christian Faith (2012)? He must be capable of heroic feats of compartmentalization. Fr Lévy ends his contribution with the following observation: ‘It is not because other traditions are wrong that Orthodoxy is right. It might simply be the case that the Orthodox approach to God leaves some latitude for other kinds, namely, non-Byzantine approaches to the same supreme Reality. For the time being, alas, one can only dream of an Orthodox Church which would be so convinced of the absolute truth of her own heritage, so proud of it, that nothing would hinder her from fathoming the riches of other traditions and welcoming them with sisterly joy’ (p. 121). Plested’s recent Orthodox Readings of Aquinas (2012) could perhaps be the swallow of an awakening spring?